favorite Favorite auteur?
- Thread starter droowl
- Start date
More than anything else stated in this thread, I agree most with this. By the definition of the word, I would like to think that I try my best to be an "auteur". However, I really don't like the word, and I hope that I'm never labeled as one. I'm just a director, and the collaborative nature of this art can never be understated, and that's true for everyone.
"Auteur is almost as ambiguous as indie."
I find the whole topic a Fukushima-like release of hot gasses.
I find the whole topic a Fukushima-like release of hot gasses.
At the moment one of my favorites of Christopher Nolan. But I get excited for many of the films that come out from many of today's "auteurs" if you will.
Actually, Indie and Auteur are very close, IMO. In both cases, we are talking about the main creator or "author." What often happens when someone makes a successful indie movie, is that the Hollywood door opens and these guys/gals become the part of the machine - losing a portion of their "individuality" or identity, because of what the studio/producers want.
Example: Sam Raimi (EVIL DEAD 1 & 2) gets to make ARMY OF DARKNESS, but on the condition that it is a toned down PG-13 version of the first two, which were too strong for R, hence Unrated. It still has Raimi tendencies, but it is now industry influenced. Raimi makes FOR THE LOVE OF THE GAME, with Kevin Costner. You can't tell it's a Raimi movie. Same with THE GIFT and A SIMPLE PLAN. But, when you see SPIDERMAN 2, there is the Doc Ock hospital escape that looks like it's straight out of EVIL DEAD (tentacle POV shots and a chainsaw!). His success with the SPIDERMAN franchise allows him to make pet projects, like DRAG ME TO HELL.
INCEPTION doesn't exist, unless Nolan makes successful BATMAN movies. Hollywood will take a chance on something "new," if the writer/director has a proven track record. If not, the auteur (true identity of the filmmaker) is restrained to safe standards. In my mind, an auteur authors and manipulates something that is truly himself; his identity stamp.
Though there is a lot of Peter Jackson in the LORD OF THE RINGS' movies, they are not at all like his outrageous indie work - BAD TASTE, MEET THE FEEBLES and DEAD ALIVE. I love those early works, because they are so unpredictable and over the top,.............and not like anyone else!
James Cameron.................. is my favorite director, simply because of TERMINATOR, ALIENS and TERMINATOR 2. I'm okay with his later movies, but these are the babies that so influenced me. If there is something I've long wanted to do, it was to have realistic characters (and great acting) in a fantasy setting. As someone said, he is very good with strong women characters, which is a different dynamic than the brute (Schwarzenegger, Stallone) strength or martial arts skill of a male. I like a vulnerable character, even if it's a barefoot Bruce Willis, in the first DIE HARD.
Speaking of THE ABYSS, the scene where "Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio drowns and Ed Harris revives her" is the kind of drama I'm talking about. The intensity is sky high and that's why I tip my hat to Cameron. I hear he used to be a terror to work for, but he demands your best and gets it, even with Schwarzenegger. There's no doubt it is his work.
Work for hire that bears no identifying traits of the filmmaker. I'm not talking about every single shot and scene (since there are other people/second unit involved), but rather what dominates the whole movie. This is the case for most of Hollywood's directors.
If s/he authors it (writes it, makes it) then s/he has the dominant idea/result, regardless of what it looks like. If s/he is not the idea's creator, then an auteur takes over a vision and makes it his or hers, like Hitchcock did with other writer's scripts. Every script was reimagined in Hitchcock's story boards. He turned words into pictures.
Last edited: